tntnixon

The answer to your question is NO!!! Your question has an assumption attached to it that doesn't exist, that of some secret cabal that nominates the candidates. Candidates decide to run based on their convictions, desire to perform the job, desire to prevent someone else from performing the job in a way that they don't agree with, ego, desire for power and a whole slew of other factors my mind can't comprehend during the time that I'm writing this post. After they make the decision to run, they gather whatever resources they can muster to make it more likely that they will get the opportunity, whether it is personal or from others. At that point, they launch their campaign. After they launch said campaign, they try to convince voters that they are the right candidate for the job by accentuating their positives, decreasing their negatives, and increasing their opponent's negatives by whatever means is at their disposal. Now follow me, because here's where it gets tricky. Finally, it goes to the voters and they get to decide, based on the information that they have and their own personal convictions, which candidate will represent them in the general election by voting in the primary. Then the process begins all over again in the run-up to the general election. So, whether you or I like it or not, the people of the Republican Party (average citizens) chose Haslam, not some great political machine. That is why I chose the "Not rigged, the thinking people are just outnumbered in this state" option in the poll. I would go on to say the same for our country as a whole, as much as I hate it. But right now, I am going to make chicken salad out of chicken... I'm going to try and avoid all out catastrophe, as we saw in the last election when so many conservatives just stayed home. If that's your road to freedom, brother, I'll have to get off at the next side street.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I'll see your intentions and raise you one result. If there had been no H. Ross Perot, there would be no Bill Clinton presidency. If there had been no Bill Clinton, chances are there'd be no Obama and there certainly would be no Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer. There would have been no asault weapons ban or Community Re-investment Act. See where this is going?

One of the nicest AR's I've seen. Great choice of add ons. I couldn't have afforded that when I was 23. You still live with mom and dad?

This line of thought actually requires reason, something that seems to be sorely lacking today. I find it amazing, how many people will allow emotion to rule them (people who would normally be very logical). It's similar to rioters who burn down there own house, only there will be no one willing to rebuild it for them, in this case. There was a recent study done that showed that misery does indeed love company. It showed that when one person does something stupid, it makes their friends and aquaintances 150% more likely to do the same stupid thing. Divorce, for instance, ran in clusters and simply knowing someone who was going through a divorce made you more likely to go through one yourself, even if you were previously happy in your marriage. I lump this whole "don't vote for any of them" thing in the same category. People hear that one person is gonna do it, so it seems more rational to do it yourself. Wake up, it is just as stupid an idea as it was before you heard it from a fellow citizen and gun owner. If you do indeed like gun rights, you are better off in the Haslam camp than the McMini Me camp. I'm not saying it is a great choice, only a better choice. Sometimes you do have to choose between being shot in the leg or being shot in the chest, when not getting shot is not an option.

Can you please tell me how any of what you just wrote has anything to do with the meaning of the words of the Constitution changing over time. You just took out of context exerpts from a letter written to Samuel Kercheval which is about ammending the Constitution and proposed amendments thereto. Also, he is quite unhappy with the judiciary and is proposing that life time judicial appointments be removed and their offices be elective. Here's the whole letter, so we're not confused Thomas Jefferson: Letter To Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816 . BTW: Did you do that editing job on letter in your post, or did you find it already butchered like that on some liberal website? One other side note, this letter was about the Virginia Constitution, not the US Constitution but I understand how the reasonings and words could be applied to both.

I wouldn't tell you that. What a lot of people don't realize is that the Japanese were just as "hard core" as the Islamic terrorists. Many people are willing to give up their lives for God, country or their core beliefs. The decision that we forced upon the Japanese was that not only are you going to give your life, but everyone who looks like you and believes like you will die along with you. That is a choice that very few are willing to make. I think if we made the Islamists face a similar decision, we would have a similar outcome.

Unless you consider John Marshall as one of our "founding fathers", this argument is untrue. At the original Constitutional Convention the "judicial review" role of the Supreme Court was only even mentioned by 11 of the 55 delegates, 2 of those mentioning it were against the idea, altogether. The US Constitution therefore does not grant such powers to the judiciary, however John Marshall, in Marbury vs. Madison, gave that role to the courts thereby usurping power that wasn't theirs to begin with. Also, the whole concept of the US Constitution as a "living breathing" document, is a 20th Century one. Not because there is any evidence that the "founding fathers" intended for it to be such, but merely at the whim of those who held power at that time. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in a 60 Minutes interview "The Constitution is a dead document. Why should we believe that our Constitution is any different from every other legal document other than the fact that it rules supreme? We wouldn't see our Last will and testament that way".

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's" (Exodus 20:17). Somehow, we have become the most covetous society in the history of mankind, yet "the people" don't seem to want to believe it. It is an interesting conundrum how a country that touts itself as having Judeo-Christian virtues, has forgotten one of its basic tenets.

I've often wondered about the notion of what "fair" means. It seems that people want fair to mean that nothing bad is allowed to happen to them. But, that way of thinking isn't fair, either. It assumes that one portion of the population must hold the burden for another segment of the population. Is that "fair"? I don't thingk so. "Fair", in my opinion, means that good things and bad things can happen to everyone without one portion of the population having to hold up the other. Everyone can either live or die by their own merits or their lack thereof. They can prosper or perish by their own decisions. That is "fair". So for all this talk of "fairness", the real goal is plunder of one group by another. The use of our laws for the benefit of "looters", as Ms. Rand would have said, is the ultimate goal of the "fairness" doctrine. The survival of one man by the sweat of another man's brow is these people's wet dream. They talk of freedom for the masses, yet want to enslave those who have the highest level of production.

You can write in any name without invalidating your ballot, if that person actually exists (Barney Fife and Porky Pig probably wouldn't work).

To my knowledge, Tru-Glo doesn't make sights for CZ's. You'll have to have the slide machined for them to fit. czcustom.com (Angus Hobdell's shop in AZ) can do it for you but I think the cost is around $200.00. I'm probably going to send my SP-01 Phantom out there for a trigger job and have the Tru-Glo sights put on (will pretty much double the price of the pistol when all is said and done). They also have a wide array of night sights and fiber optics that will fit without having to machine your pistol, but without the advantage of both.

I didn't know we had so many members who were either happy with Obama or wish they had voted for him, instead because that is the logical result of what you are saying.

You can probably see them at the next gay rights parade you go to!!

Now for my editorial opinion of the November general election. In 2008 many conservatives were left without a true conservative candidate to support in the general election for president and chose to either stay at home or vote for an "also ran". The thought was "hey, how could Obama be any worse than McCain". Guess what, it's a hell of a lot worse and our republic, as we know it, is crumbling. A moderate to slightly right candidate would not be destroying our society at warp speed like our current administration has. Now, we have a similar situation with our Governor's race. And as much as I might have to hold my nose, there is no way I'm going to let McMini Me take this election by default. I've been around this state my entire life and I remember the last four years of his father's administration (which he admits will be very similar to his) and all the giveaway programs including TennCare (the loadstone around our state budget's neck). So, I'll go in with hope and prayer and push the button for Haslam. Insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results. I consider the 2008 election as a lesson learned and refuse to make the same mistake again. Sometimes, it's better to choose the lesser of two evils when choosing a candidate. In saying that, we should never compromise on policy demands from that candidate. But by supporting him, grudgingly, we at least have some influence on said policies. If we totally oppose him, we have no impact whatsoever. Rant over!!!

No, it was not rigged. This was a case of 2 relatively conservative candidates splitting their vote and handing it to a much more liberal candidate who didn't have to share his vote with anyone. Same scenario as in the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. Also, you had a situation where there was no race in the Democratic side of the governor primary, so a lot of Democrats crossed over and voted in the Republican side and chose the candidate that most represented their values. It was a simple case of math and demographics, nothing more. Now in saying that, I think it sucks!!!!

In 2002 the TN state budget was 20,542,088,400. Our current budget is 29,774,201,000. During this time the highest inflation rate was about 3% with the last 2 years actually showing deflation for the first time since the Eisenhower presidency. During this time TN employees got no raises, so the traditionally largest expenditure by an employer stagnated. Yet, if our budget had merely kept with inflation (I'm forgiving the 2 years of deflation and the fact that employees didn't get raises) the current fiscal year budget should have been 26,022,102,990 which is 3 billion dollars less than our current budget. But somehow, every budget year, Bredeson claimed that he was cutting the budget and we were a billion dollars short (of money he wanted to spend, that is). God help us if Bill Haslam is just as "fiscally conservative" as Bredeson!!!!

My ideal candidate in an inteview would go something like this: Q: What are you going to do for the next four years? A: Absolutely nothing. I will not propose one new law. As a matter of fact, only the repeals of old laws will get anything but a veto. I will do nothing for anyone and expect nothing in return. Hell, I won't even take a paycheck or sleep in the mansion.

There is one concern, that a Republican legislature will be more likely to go along with some policies that a Republican governor proposes, even if they would normally not support them.

In some ways, the Lt. Governor has more power than the Governor in TN since it only takes a simple majority to overide a veto, so carry on boys.

I heard recently:" "A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing right."

People don't seem to remember that most of the financial problems this state has were left by "Big Head Ned" in his last four years in office. He created so many "new programs" and left every subsequent governor with the job of trying to pay for them. Remember TennCare was going to "save money".

Maybe we'll get TennCare 2.0.

Not in Sumner County. The election office is as far away from the majority of the county's population as possible and the keep banker's hours.

AP just called for Haslam. Of course they called for Gore and Dewey once upon a time.